Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Golden toad

Golden toad
Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 11:03:36 (UTC)
 * Reason:This one may be a little controversial. Yes, the quality is not sky-high, but this is one of those cases where we should be happy with slightly substandard quality- this species is extinct. We're never going to get another photo of it, and this is by far the best one online, never mind the best free one. I think this comfortably meets the featured picture criteria.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Golden toad, Bufo, Decline in amphibian populations, frog, extinction, holocene extinction, amphibian, others. It is used in hundreds of articles because of presence in templates.
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
 * Creator:Charles H. Smith


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I thought I saw Attenborough say that a few specimens were captured, which would make them extinct in the wild only, but it must have been a related frog. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been upsampled ("vergrößert") - there is no information on how much. The source link is broken. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strangely, the USFWS site doesn't seem to have the image in their image database any more, at least not under any of the obvious search terms. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We could update the source to another page. This page, for instance, notes the original source, author and copyright info, as well as providing a very high resolution version. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, it looks like all of their images from 2001 to 2004 are missing. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There seems to be a film or scanning artifact near the eye. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the composition of this striking image, but most regrettably, the picture is not very sharp, and a high amount of image noise (esp. in the shadows) is present. There also seem to be many specks of dust here and there, especially on the leaf. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the technical shortcomings- did you read the nomination statement? Surely, we can let these go? J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit I am ashamed of myself for rashly failing to read the nomination statement carefully :(. I have created an Edited version with dust and scanning artifacts removed, including, most notably, the circular artifact on the toad's eye. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit only Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the colours of the first, but agree that that scanning artefact needs to be got rid of. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit has exactly the same colours as the original, a fact which Papa Lima Whiskey corroborated (see file history). Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, my bad. Eyes playing tricks on me. Support edit then. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support edit SMasters (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)